Skip to main content
Glama

Kolada Se

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so thoroughly: filing without an account returns a claim_token, the token can be passed back later to check status, there's a daily rate limit of 5 per identifier, and the action doesn't count against tool-call quota. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but every sentence contributes: purpose, usage, exclusions, style guidance, token flow, operational details. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage. While it could be tightened slightly, the density of useful information justifies the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 params, nested object, no output schema), and the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what to include, how to follow up, rate limits, and impact. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit claim_token explanation. Highly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds meaningful extra context for claim_token (how to pass it back later and what it returns), which goes beyond the schema's description. However, since the schema already covers most semantics, the incremental value is modest but real.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+target: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on reporting issues about Pipeworx tools themselves.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly enumerates when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It even clarifies ambiguity around tool ownership. This is exemplary usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Kolada Se toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical when no routing candidate is active), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions through the same underlying router. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has substantial purpose overlap that requires reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case, and the pipeworx_/polymarket_/ask_ prefixes give some structure, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb_noun (list_municipalities, get_data), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes). The inconsistent prefixing across meta-tools (ask_, deep_, entity_, scan_, validate_) makes the surface feel less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is on the heavy side, but the bigger problem is that the server name 'Kolada Se' matches only 4 tools (search_kpi, list_municipalities, list_org_units, get_data), while the other 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). This is a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the Kolada domain named by the server, the surface is minimal: you can search KPIs, list municipalities, list org units, and fetch single-KPI data, but there is no multi-year bulk fetch, cross-municipality comparison, or unit-level data retrieval. The broader Pipeworx/prediction-market surface is fairly feature-complete, but it is not what the server name implies, so the set as a whole leaves the apparent domain thinly covered.

Resources